ICANN Registry Request Service

ICANN Registry Request Service Ticket ID: V1B7O-0S2V4 Registry Name: DotCooperation LLC gTLD: .COOP Status: ICANN Review Status Date: 2016-07-07 12:51:58 Print Date: 2016-07-07 12:58:18

Proposed Service Name of Proposed Service:

Auto-Renew RSEP

Technical description of Proposed Service:

DotCooperation LLC (DCLLC) wishes to align the billing lifecycle for .coop domains with that of other gTLDs, by changing from an Auto-Delete model to an Auto-Renew model, and implementing the Registration Grace Periods described in RFC 3915. Currently, the Expiration Date of a .coop domain does not automatically increase by one year when that date is reached. Instead, the Sponsoring Registrar must explicitly renew the domain by submitting a EPP command. Otherwise, the domain is placed on the pendingDelete status, and is purged from the database after 45 days. The registrar may restore the domain during this period by submitting a command. Additionally, no grace periods are permitted, so the fees associated with a successful and commands, or with successful inbound transfers, are not refunded to the registrar if the domain is subsequently deleted. DCLLC proposes to use the same lifecycle model that is widely deployed under other gTLDs, including all those gTLDs which use the same Registry Service Provider as .coop (CentralNic). Under the auto-renew model, the Expiration Date of all .coop domains will automatically advance by 1 calendar year when that date is reached. The Sponsoring Registrar may then issue a command at any point within 45 days (the Auto-Renew Grace Period or ARGP) and receive a refund for the renewal fee. Domains deleted during the ARGP will then enter the 30-day Redemption Grace Period (RGP), during which they may be restored by issuing an extended EPP command, as per Section 4.2.5 of RFC 3915. If a domain is not restored during the RGP, then at the end of this period, it gains RGP Pending Delete status, and is finally purged after a further 5 days. .coop domains will be subject to the following Grace Periods: oAdd Grace Period (addPeriod, 5 days) oRenew Grace Period (renewPeriod, 5 days)

Page 1


oAuto-Renew Grace Period (autoRenewPeriod, 45 days) oTransfer Grace Period (transferPeriod, 5 days) oRedemption Grace Period (redemptionPeriod, 30 days) In accordance with ICANN consensus policy, the Add Grace Limits Policy will be enforced to charge registrars for all deletions of domains in the Add Grace Period in excess of the permitted maximum. Diagrams showing the intended domain lifecycle and RGP State Diagram are included as attachments. Appendix A (COOP Auto-Renew RSEP-Final.pdf) Appendix B (rgp.pdf) Appendix C (lifecycle.pdf)

Consultation Please describe with specificity your consultations with the community, experts and or others. What were the quantity, nature and content of the consultations?:

Since moving the .coop Registry's operation to CentralNic, just over a year ago, dotCoop has been presented with the opportunity to review its functionality, processes and strategy. As part of this review, the new Operator (CentralNic) has recommended the alignment of the .coop lifecycle to that of generic TLDs. It is believed that this would improve the operability of the .coop registry and it would attract more registrars to onboard .coop. The largest .coop Registrar (Domains.coop with 74% of .coop names in registration) has been consulted about the proposed changes and they are in agreement that it will be an improvement to the current status. These consultations were carried out in face-to-face meetings between DCLLC and CentralNic and Domains.coop.

a. If the registry is a sponsored TLD, what were the nature and content of these consultations with the sponsored TLD community?:

In January 2016, executive representatives of the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA- www.ica.coop) and the National Co-operative Business Association (NCBA- www.ncba.coop) held a meeting to discuss, among other things, the opportunities for marketing .coop more effectively. Since its launch, in 2002, .coop has been provided to the wider co-operative movement by only a handful of registrars with the vast majority of domains in registration under the original UK-based registrar Domains.coop. The move of the Registry

Page 2


operations to CentralNic is presenting dotCoop an opportunity to access the network of registrars onboard the CentralNic platform. In January's meeting the representatives of the NCBA and the ICA, the key stakeholders and founder members of the .coop namespace -representing the North American and Global co-op movements respectively- asked dotCoop LLC to actively increase the number of .coop registrars, to make the domain more accessible by co-ops around the world. Streamlining the lifecycle of the .coop domain is one of the ways dotCoop is hoping to attract more registrars, to increase the .coop registrations and to provide a wider choice of vendors and services to .coop registrants.

b. Were consultations with gTLD registrars or the registrar constituency appropriate? Which registrars were consulted? What were the nature and content of the consultation?:

The largest .coop Registrar (Domains.coop with 74% of .coop names in registration) has been consulted about the proposed changes and they are in agreement that it will be an improvement to the current system. These consultations were carried out in face-to-face meetings between DCLLC and CentralNic and Domains.coop. The changes have been discussed also with registrars who have expressed an interest in on boarding .coop within 2016. Positive feedback about this RSEP was given by these prospective registrars on email.

c. Were consultations with other constituency groups appropriate? Which groups were consulted? What were the nature and content of these consultations?:

There have not been any other consultations, we believe that this is an improvement to the .coop registry functionality, which will not have any negative impact, if any impact at all, to any other constituency groups.

d. Were consultations with end users appropriate? Which groups were consulted? What were the nature and content of these consultations?:

There have not been end user consultations. This change will be an enhancement to .coop and it will allowing dotCoop to attract more registrars, which will in turn provide a variety of services to end users of .coop. Therefore, we believe this change will enhance the end user experience. Furthermore, our largest .coop registrar has reported a few times over the years that .coop registrants have been requesting the auto-renew function for .coop names.

e. Who would endorse the introduction of this service? What were the nature and content of these consultations?:

Page 3


All of the above-mentioned organisations would endorse this change. However, dotCoop and the Registry Operator will implement a communications plan to ensure all existing and prospective registrars have adequate notice and are fully aware of the suggested changes to .coop.

f. Who would object the introduction of this service? What were(or would be) the nature and content of these consultations?:

We have no reason to believe anyone would object this.

Timeline Please describe the timeline for implementation of the proposed new registry service:

DCLLC intends to enable the Auto-Renew and Registry Grace Periods 90 days of the successful completion of the RSEP process. Registrars will be notified no less than 90 days before the change.

Business Description Describe how the Proposed Service will be offered:

All changes to registry services will occur in the background. Once configured, CentralNic's systems will automatically update the expiration date of domains, and debit the sponsoring registrar's account. Registrars which implement RFC 3915 in their EPP clients will see the appropriate elements in domain responses, where such status codes are applicable to the domain in question.

Describe quality assurance plan or testing of Proposed Service:

CentralNic's registry system already implements business logic to provide the proposed service. This system already supports more than 9 million gTLD domains, all of which operate under the Auto-Renew and RGP systems.

Please list any relevant RFCs or White Papers on the proposed service and explain how those papers are relevant.:

Page 4


RFC 3915 - Domain Registry Grace Period Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning Protocol. This RFC describes how the Registry Grace Periods and RGP redemption process are implemented in EPP.

Contractual Provisions List the relevant contractual provisions impacted by the Proposed Service:

Section 3.12.5 of the .coop Registrar-Registry Agreement and the .coop policies provide for the expiration life cycle as it is and allows for it to be changed provided Registrar is given notice of at least 30 days. If the Proposed Service is approved, then .coop Registry will provide notice accordingly.

What effect, if any, will the Proposed Service have on the reporting of data to ICANN:

The following columns in the monthly Registrar Activity Reports are always zero, because there are no transactions to report: odeleted-domains-grace orestored-domains orestored-noreport oagp-exemption-requests oagp-exemptions-granted oagp-exempted-domains Once the change is made, these columns will include numbers as appropriate depending on the actual transactions observed during the month (they may therefore still be zero).

What effect, if any, will the Proposed Service have on the Whois?:

Currently, expired and non-renewed .coop domains will have an "Expiration Date" field that is in the past. Once the Auto-Renew model is activated, the "Expiration Date" field will automatically advance by 1 calendar year once the date is reached.

Contract Amendments Please describe or provide the necessary contractual amendments for the proposed service:

Page 5


None. However, the Registry Policies will be amended and Registrars will be notified.

Benefits of Service Describe the benefits of the Proposed Service:

The proposed change will simplify the implementation of .coop for registrars, and better align .coop with industry standard practice.

Competition Do you believe your proposed new Registry Service would have any positive or negative effects on competition? If so, please explain.:

Aligning .coop with industry standard practice will make it easier for new .coop registrars to integrate the TLD into their offerings. This is expected to increase the competition in the registrar market.

How would you define the markets in which your proposed Registry Service would compete?:

There will be no changes in the target markets for .coop, as a result of this service implementation.

What companies/entities provide services or products that are similar in substance or effect to your proposed Registry Service?:

The majority of TLDs in operation have the lifecycle proposed here for .coop.

In view of your status as a registry operator, would the introduction of your proposed Registry Service potentially impair the ability of other companies/entities that provide similar products or services to compete?:

Not at all.

Do you propose to work with a vendor or contractor to provide the proposed Registry Service? If so, what is the name of the vendor/contractor, and describe the nature of the services the vendor/contractor would provide.:

Page 6


No, CentralNic- the .coop Registry Operator- will be implementing the suggested changes.

Have you communicated with any of the entities whose products or services might be affected by the introduction of your proposed Registry Service? If so, please describe the communications.:

Not applicable

Do you have any documents that address the possible effects on competition of your proposed Registry Service? If so, please submit them with your application. (ICANN will keep the documents confidential).:

Not applicable

Security and Stability Does the proposed service alter the storage and input of Registry Data?:

No change is required.

Please explain how the proposed service will affect the throughput, response time, consistency or coherence of reponses to Internet servers or end systems:

No effect is anticipated.

Have technical concerns been raised about the proposed service, and if so, how do you intend to address those concerns?:

No concerns have been raised.

Other Issues Are there any Intellectual Property considerations raised by the Proposed Service:

No IP considerations have been raised.

Page 7


Does the proposed service contain intellectual property exclusive to your gTLD registry?:

There is no exclusive intellectual property associated with the proposed service.

List Disclaimers provided to potential customers regarding the Proposed Service:

No disclaimers to be provided.

Any other relevant information to include with this request:

No other relevant information.

Page 8

ICANN Registry Request Service

Recommend Documents